I don't know about other founders, but for me, startups are basically the only vehicle for solving big problems that nobody else will/can solve.
Often the reasons that (nearly) nobody else is trying to solve your exact problem are 1) it is risky/unlikely to monetize well, 2) it is hard, grueling, or boring work that may not even function right in the end, 3) might believe it to be impossible or not worth it.
But if you have a big problem in front of you and you strongly believe it can be solved and should be solved, then what other choice do you have but to start a startup?
There are lots of people (maybe myself? I dunno.) who feel strongly about solving a problem but also feel that they don't have "what it takes" to be a successful startup founder. I have a failed startup in my past. The failure process wrecked me for years, emotionally, socially, financially, the whole thing. I'm okay now, don't worry.
But are there any other reasonable options for "trying to solve a big problem that is otherwise being ignored" other than starting a startup?
I want to solve big problems I care about. I have that ego discussed in the article; often I find I do believe I have the right combination of things to solve a particular problem better than other people. So I feel like it is my responsibility to do it.
But being a startup founder is hard and if your personality or circumstances aren't a good fit, then, what do you do? Just stay frustrated that the problem isn't being solved?
This resonates very strongly with me. Everywhere I work, I find really cool things to invent and business process improvements. Sometimes the biggest impacts these have are at the megacorps due to economies of scale. Often though there's so much friction, overhead, and red tape that it's impossible to get buy-in from team members and managers in the megacorps. This happens even in the best cases where everyone is open-minded and supportive. Sometimes large groups just don't have the excess capacity needed to re-tool. In large companies that don't have the best case cultures, it's nearly impossible to implement improvements or use any cross-team resources (human, physical or digital) to bring an invention to life.
It seems you're absolutely right that a startup is your only option if your idea is a proposed solution to a problem that is outside the mission/domain of (your/any) current organization, and/or if any organizations which would be interested simply can't devote resources and time to developing, evangelizing, and implementing your solution.
However, the risk involved in the process is so damned high. I love working in teams, whether at large megacorps, small contracting groups, or on my own or my friend's startup ideas. I don't love the "burnt relationships, heartache, debt, lawsuits, depression" (as 'irjustin phrased it elsewhere in this thread), that can be associated with startups.
Some startups are well-positioned for co-operative mutual interest VC money (repl.it would be a strange thing to bootstrap). Some startups are fantastic for bootstrapping (Sparkfun/Adafruit), and many could probably succeed just fine doing either (mailchimp, bootcamp come to mind). Still others probably best operate via philantrophic arrangements (OpenStax).
Going to disagree with you here. In many (I'll even say most) cases, being an executive or respected consultant at a large company with established resources, staff, and customers will give you significantly better opportunity to actually solve a big problem. The vast majority of startups are not, in fact, solving big problems. They are solving small problems for a small subset of people who need problems solved (usually yuppies) because those are the problems they are able to solve efficiently.
What you probably mean is that startups are good at innovating a potential solution to a big problem. But this is an entirely different thing than actually solving it at scale, and is the reason many startups end up getting bought or acquihired before they do anything of large importance.
I don't know about other founders, but for me, startups are basically the only vehicle for solving big problems that nobody else will/can solve.
Often the reasons that (nearly) nobody else is trying to solve your exact problem are 1) it is risky/unlikely to monetize well, 2) it is hard, grueling, or boring work that may not even function right in the end, 3) might believe it to be impossible or not worth it.
But if you have a big problem in front of you and you strongly believe it can be solved and should be solved, then what other choice do you have but to start a startup?
There are lots of people (maybe myself? I dunno.) who feel strongly about solving a problem but also feel that they don't have "what it takes" to be a successful startup founder. I have a failed startup in my past. The failure process wrecked me for years, emotionally, socially, financially, the whole thing. I'm okay now, don't worry.
But are there any other reasonable options for "trying to solve a big problem that is otherwise being ignored" other than starting a startup?
I want to solve big problems I care about. I have that ego discussed in the article; often I find I do believe I have the right combination of things to solve a particular problem better than other people. So I feel like it is my responsibility to do it.
But being a startup founder is hard and if your personality or circumstances aren't a good fit, then, what do you do? Just stay frustrated that the problem isn't being solved?